freeworldgroup.com

If the world were to change, how many people do you think should die for that to truly happen?

Do you ideally believe that noone has to die for the world to change, or do you believe that the rest of the earth pop needs to bite the dust?

This post may or may not be influenced by me replaying the metal gear solid series.

the world is already over populated. We need to remove at least half the population to be comfortably within the carrying capacity of the planet. Lets send people to live on the moon and mars and be done with it. The British did it a couple of centuries ago with Aussiealia, and it turned out fine. Rightttt?

FWG Leader wrote:the world is already over populated. We need to remove at least half the population to be comfortably within the carrying capacity of the planet. Lets send people to live on the moon and mars and be done with it. The British did it a couple of centuries ago with Aussiealia, and it turned out fine. Rightttt?

This. Problem is too much people--Send them to space. Make moon habitable. Make Mars habitable. Do science. Do lots of science, less money in military. Make a FWG colony on Mars where we all annoy each other and argue about American politics

What in the world cannot support it's population? The self-destructive system we call currency? Because Europe can produce much MUCH more food than they are doing right now but the EU introduced the CAP which puts a quota on the amont of food the farmers can produce. That is to prevent the prices of certain food goods falling. And that's the reason world hunger will never be sorted. Electricity is ready to go green, one particular stretch of land in the sahara desert can profuce enough energy with solar panels to supply the world but no. The oil companies would lose money and jobs would go too, maintaining those panels can be a proper job as they need plenty of water. It's the nature of money and people wanting money that prevents the technological, social, and cultural development of humanity as a whole.